R. v. L.S.Y., (2007) 423 A.R. 288 (PC)

• Judge: LeGrandeur, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 2007
• Citations: (2007), 423 A.R. 288 (PC);2007 ABPC 208

R. v. L.S.Y. (2007), 423 A.R. 288 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] A.R. TBEd. JL.178

Her Majesty the Queen v. L.S.Y. (031405715P101001; 2007 ABPC 208)

Indexed As: R. v. L.S.Y.

Alberta Provincial Court

LeGrandeur, P.C.J.

July 20, 2007.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to sexual assault and was sentenced. The Crown applied for an order pursuant to s. 490.012(1) of the Criminal Code, requiring the accused to comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA). The offence for which the accused was convicted and sentenced was committed before the coming into force of the SOIRA. The court raised the question of whether ordering an individual to comply with the requirements of the SOIRA, when the offence to which the Act applied was committed before its enactment, offended s. 11(i) of the Charter. In a decision reported at 411 A.R. 54, the court held that it had jurisdiction to raise the constitutional issue and it appointed an amicus curiae to make representations on the issue. The Provincial Crown and the amicus curiae made submissions.

The Alberta Provincial Court concluded that a SOIRA order was a punishment within s. 11(i) of the Charter that was not insignificant or trivial in nature and s. 11(i) thereby prevented the retrospective application of the SOIRA provisions to an offender who had committed the predicate offence prior to the SOIRA and the applicable Criminal Code provisions coming into force. The court stated that, therefore, no SOIRA order could be made against the subject offender unless the Crown satisfied the court that the limitation of the s. 11(i) Charter rights so as to allow the SOIRA order to be retrospective in operation was justified within s. 1 of the Charter.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Civil Rights - Topic 3131.1

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right to benefit of lesser punishment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3766 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3765

Punishment - General - Variation of punishment after offence - Benefit of lesser punishment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3766 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3766

Punishment - General - Punishment defined - The accused pled guilty to sexual assault and was sentenced - The Crown applied for an order pursuant to s. 490.012(1) of the Criminal Code, requiring the accused to comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) - The offence for which the accused was convicted and sentenced was committed before the coming into force of the SOIRA - The Alberta Provincial Court held that a SOIRA order was a punishment within s. 11(i) of the Charter that was not insignificant or trivial in nature and s. 11(i) thereby prevented the retrospective application of the SOIRA provisions to an offender who had committed the predicate offence prior to the SOIRA and the applicable Criminal Code provisions coming into force - The court stated that, therefore, no SOIRA order could be made against the subject offender unless the Crown satisfied the court that the limitation of the s. 11(i) Charter rights so as to allow the SOIRA order to be retrospective in operation was justified within s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 21 to 122.

Civil Rights - Topic 8416

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal proceedings - Right to lesser punishment where punishment varied - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3766 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice - At issue before the court was whether ordering an individual to comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, when the offence to which the Act applied was committed before its enactment, offended s. 11(i) of the Charter - The Crown argued that the notice requirements of s. 24 of the Judicature Act, particularly s. 24(3), were not followed - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "If the issue is the adequacy as opposed to the existence of notice in any form, then the question becomes one of whether the party complaining of the inadequate notice has suffered any prejudice or disadvantage with respect to its ability to deal with the issue that is being addressed" - The Crown had neither asserted nor demonstrated any prejudice with respect to presenting its submissions - The court concluded that there was no jurisdictional limit to its consideration of the constitutional issue - See paragraphs 7 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 8588

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Notice to Attorney General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 9954

Practice - Notice to Crown and interested parties of attack on validity or applicability of statute - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8587.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3090.1

Special powers - Sex offender registration legislation - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3766 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5602

Punishments (sentence) - General principles - Punishment defined - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3766 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5609

Punishment (sentence) - General principles - Right to benefit of lesser punishment - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3766 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Aberdeen (E.B.) (2006), 384 A.R. 395; 367 W.A.C. 395; 212 C.C.C.(3d) 505 (C.A.), consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Blom (E.) (2002), 162 O.A.C. 238 (C.A.), consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Cross (J.E.) (2006), 241 N.S.R.(2d) 349; 767 A.P.R. 349; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 24].

R. v. Aberdeen (E.B.) (2005), 387 A.R. 269; 211 C.C.C.(3d) 131 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Owusu (K.P.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 25; 2007 ABCA 95, consd. [para. 28].

R. v. Redhead (D.G.) (2006), 384 A.R. 206; 367 W.A.C. 206; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 315; 2006 ABCA 84, consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 33].

P.S.C. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. D51; 2007 BCSC 895, not folld. [para. 36].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321; 60 C.R.(3d) 193; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 385, consd. [para. 41].

R. v. Wiles (P.N.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 895; 343 N.R. 201; 240 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 763 A.P.R. 1; 203 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 2005 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 64].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 90].

Smith v. Doe, 538 US 1009 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Lambert (G.) (1994), 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 347; 382 A.P.R. 347; 93 C.C.C.(3d) 88 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Turnbull (A.) (2006), 261 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 241; 790 A.P.R. 241; 214 C.C.C.(3d) 18; 2006 NLCA 66, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. T.L.B. (2007), 404 A.R. 283; 394 W.A.C. 283; 2007 ABCA 135, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Jackpine (R.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 554; 347 N.R. 201; 210 O.A.C. 200; 37 C.R.(6th) 1; 2006 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Rodgers - see R. v. Jackpine (R.).

R. v. McCormick (A.E.) (2006), 401 A.R. 119; 391 W.A.C. 119; 216 C.C.C.(3d) 437; 2006 ABCA 410, refd to. [para. 115].

R. v. Ellis (M.) (2001), 143 O.A.C. 43; 2001 CarswellOnt 1058 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 120].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(i) [para. 1].

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. J-2, sect. 24 [para. 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (1997 Looseleaf Ed.), pp. 33-17 [para. 32]; 55-7 [para. 8].

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (5th Ed.) (2007 Looseleaf Supp.), pp. 36-22 [paras. 51, 67]; 36-23 [paras. 52, 53].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law - The General Part (2nd Ed. 1961), generally [para. 38].

Counsel:

Goran Tomljanovic, for the Crown;

Greg J. White, amicus curiae.

This matter was heard on May 14, 2007, before LeGrandeur, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on July 20, 2007.